I neglected to respond to this, squirt. Sorry. And since I think we're really in total agreement, I thought I should go back and catch up...

Originally Posted by squirt
You're right babies need love and affection and daily interaction with adults, nothing fancy, but there has to be more interaction than just feeding and changing the diaper and letting the kid watch TV or sit in a crib ALL day. Many, certainly not all, but many kids do not get that interaction at day-care.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly. That's why I made the point that there's good daycare and bad daycare. Good childcare involves all the sorts of positive, healthy interactions that you're talking about here, which are so vital. Bad childcare is often just human warehousing, and it's bad for kids. It's why I think we need to push for more affordable and high-quality childcare in this country--to put an end to the warehouses.

My point is that it's BAD INTERACTIONS that make some daycare bad; it's not ALL daycare that's bad! It is entirely possible to have daycare that is quite good for the child, possibly even exposing the child to experiences and opportunities the child wouldn't have gotten at home.

Originally Posted by squirt
Not to beat a dead horse, but I do think that building a foundation through interaction and movement and exposure is important.


It's a good horse, so beat away. wink The part I was taking issue with was the exact correlation stuff. Human interaction and movement (and breastfeeding!) are good for babies. No argument here. But doing these things does not guarantee some certain number of IQ points magically appearing on the child's first IQ test.

Am I being clearer now? I hate to seem to be arguing with people I actually agree with! wink

Kriston